Blog Entry

NCAA President Emmert on 'full cost scholarships'

Posted on: May 31, 2011 3:44 pm
Edited on: May 31, 2011 4:04 pm
 
Posted by Chip Patterson

NCAA President Mark Emmert has only been on the job officially since November, but as many have pointed out - there has never been a more tumultuous time in college sports. From player and coach scandals to the ongoing criticism of the Bowl Championship Series (and scandal within the BCS), it seems that many of the pillars of the NCAA have come under more scrutiny in the last year than ever before.

One particular hot-button topic recently endorsed by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and SEC commissioner Mike Slive is the idea of discussing "full cost scholarships" for student-athletes. Many people believe that the amount of money given to student athletes in their scholarships does not cover the full "cost of living" during their time at the college or university. Emmert was a guest on Mayhem in the AM on 790 the Zone in Atlanta on Friday, and weighed in on student athletes being paid.

"I’m as adamant as I’ve ever been about having student athletes be students. We do in fact provide it to many of our universities - full cost of attendance scholarships and financial aid. It’s really consistent with everything that goes on inside of universities and it wasn’t widely covered in the media. This was something I’ve been talking about again for six months. The notion of converting student athletes to employees and providing them with a salary and changing their status from one student athlete to ‘quasi-professional’ that’s where I draw the line and I draw it sharply.”

What Emmert believes is not "covered well by the media" includes non-athletic scholarships offered by universities. Many "full cost of attendance" scholarships include stipends for extra living expenses. The argument, of course is that providing such stipends for student-athletes would jeopardize their amateur status. Not to mention, current requirements under Title IX legislations would require for thousands upon thousands to be poured into the program by universities to ensure balance is maintained among the different athletic teams.

When you listen to the interview (you can stream the MP3 from 790 The Zone here), Emmert goes on to defend the swag from bowl games with the "tradition of college football." The issues at hand are present because they were not considered when the rules were established in the "tradition of college football." Now we are dealing with the intersection of the "tradition of college football" and the "business of college football."
Comments

Since: Jan 9, 2007
Posted on: May 31, 2011 5:24 pm
 

NCAA President Emmert on 'full cost scholarships'

Yes - you are dead on about Title IX.  There is NO way you could do this just for "revenue generating" sports.  The Big Ten would have a Title IX lawsuit almost instantaneously. I am not a legal expert, but my underrstanding is that you have to have an equal number of scholarships for men and women. Also it has to be apples to apples. You cant offer full scholarships to men and only half scholarships for females. Likewise you can't off "full cost" scholarhsips to one group and not to the other. Jim Delaney is a complete idiot, and is neither a "Leader" or "Legend" in the intelligence dept.




Since: Mar 7, 2007
Posted on: May 31, 2011 4:35 pm
 

NCAA President Emmert on 'full cost scholarships'

... Most schools do not have the money for this, so what happens then...
Those FBS schools would vote against the proposed change and it fails because they are the majority.



Since: Aug 18, 2010
Posted on: May 31, 2011 4:20 pm
 

NCAA President Emmert on 'full cost scholarships'

I do not see how full cost scholarships could work and pass the legal tests, along with basic fairness.  Most schools do not have the money for this, so what happens then.  Title IX will surely come into play, and then what.  I have heard some say that this will only be for revenue generating sports.  Womens basketball at UConn and UT make money, so are we going to pay those females but not the women basketball players from other major schools.  That will lead to quite the recruiting advantage for those two, and a severe disadvantage for all the others.  I don't know if this is as much about giving the players some money for living expenses or if it is about keeping the power with the big boys.  I also doubt that a couple of hundred dollars a month is going to keep these athletes from acting against the rules anyway.  It does not matter how much you have, you always want more.  That is just human nature. 


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com